Ex Parte Wahdan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

13315274 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/315,274 12/08/2011 Karim Wahdan Wahdan04 8187
91892 7590 10/02/2017
Incorporating Innovation LLC dba Incorporating
Innovation With Charlena Thorpe, Patent Attorney
6340 Sugarloaf Parkway
Suite 200
Duluth, GA 30097
EXAMINER
PO, MING CHEUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1771
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
Charlena@incorporatinginnovation.com
charlena. thorpe @ charlenathorpe. com
wayne @ charlenathorpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KARIM WAHDAN1
Appeal 2017-000812
Application 13/315,274
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Karim Wahdan.
Appeal 2017-000812
Application 13/315,274
Appellant requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—9. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
1. A method to depolymerize plastic to create fuel, comprising:
heating plastic feedstock to a molten state;
heating the molten plastic by electromagnetic induction to a vapor state; and
collecting the plastic vapor and lowering the temperature of the plastic vapor
to produce liquid fuel.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Dressier US 1,812,432 June 30, 1931
Allan US Pat. Pub. 2010/0329938 A1 Dec. 30,2010
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Allan in view of Dressier.
2. Claims 2—8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Allan in view of Dressier.
2
Appeal 2017-000812
Application 13/315,274
ANALYSIS
To the extent that Appellant has presented substantive arguments for
the separate patentability of any individual claims on appeal, we will address
them separately consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii). We select
claims 1, 2, and 7 as representative of Appellant’s arguments in this regard.
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of the
respective positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of
evidence supports the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that the subject
matter of Appellant’s claims is unpatentable over the applied art.
Accordingly, we sustain each of the Examiner’s rejections on appeal
essentially for the reasons set forth in the Final Office Action and in the
Answer. We add the following for emphasis.
With regard to claim 1 (rejected in Rejection 1), the Examiner makes
findings as set forth on pages 3^4 of the Answer, which we summarize
below.
The Examiner finds that Allan teaches, in 139, a system and process
comprising a conveying zone, a supercritical fluid reaction zone within
an electrically conductive housing, and a reaction product
quenching/separation zone. Ans. 3.
The Examiner finds that Allan teaches, in 143, an apparatus
comprising an extruder-fed induction-heated supercritical fluid polymer
depolymerization machine that comprises in fluidic series, an elongated
conveying zone, a supercritical fluid reaction zone, and a reaction
product quenching/separation zone. The Examiner finds that supercritical
fluid reaction zone is taught in 145 of Allan to comprise an inducting
3
Appeal 2017-000812
Application 13/315,274
heating coil positioned circumferentially about the supercritical fluid
reaction zone. The Examiner finds that the supercritical fluid reaction zone
is further taught in 141 to be heated by means of electromagnetic induction
as a result of passing through the alternating magnetic field. The reaction
products from the supercritical fluid reaction zone are quenched and then
separated. Ans. 3.
The Examiner also finds that Allan teaches in Figure 6 that
the product separation zone comprises a top stream and a bottom stream.
The Examiner finds that Allan teaches in 145 that the reaction products are
separated into at least a water soluble fraction and an organic solvent soluble
fraction. The Examiner states that the bottom stream is liquid while the top
stream would be expected to be in the form of a vapor in order to leave
via the top of the product reaction zone (corresponding to the claimed step of
collecting the plastic vapor and lowering the temperature of the plastic vapor
to produce liquid fuel). Ans. 3.
The Examiner states that Allan does not explicitly teach heating the
waste plastic to a molten state before heating the molten plastic by
electromagnetic induction to a vapor state. Ans. 4. The Examiner states,
however, that Allan’s Figure 6 shows an embodiment in which “heat and
pressure build up” occurs in the extruder, before it is fed into the
supercritical fluid reaction zone. Based upon this teaching, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to have heated waste plastics to a
molten state to allow for easier extruding into the supercritical fluid
reaction zone. Ans. 4.
4
Appeal 2017-000812
Application 13/315,274
With regard to claims 2 and 7 (rejected in Rejection 2), the Examiner
states that Allan does not teach use of a plurality of trays to transport the
waste plastic. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that Dressier teaches, at lines 41—
65 on page 2, a belt conveyor comprising trays or pans linked together, and
track rail engaging rollers, which are run through a kiln chamber where the
plastic is heated. Ans. 4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to have used a belt conveyor comprising trays linked together to
transport the plastic of Allan through the supercritical fluid reaction
zone based upon the teachings of Dressier, and in light of the fact that the
record does not show that such a method of transporting the plastic through
the electromagnetic induction stage is for any particular purpose or solves
any specific problem. Ans. 4—5.
With regard to claim 1, Appellant argues that Allan does not teach
heating waste plastic material to a molten state prior to placing the waste
plastic material and water into the reaction zone. Appeal Br. 5—6. Appellant
submits that Allan only discloses increasing the pressure of the waste plastic
prior to heating the waste plastic in the reaction zone using induction
heating. Appeal Br. 6.
We agree with the Examiner’s stated reply made on page 7 of the
Answer. Therein, the Examiner states that Allan’s Figure 6 clearly indicates
“heat and pressure buildup” before the feed is placed into the reactor. Thus,
according to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to heat the waste plastics in order to allow easier extruding.2
2 We note that the Examiner is not taking Official Notice that heating the
waste plastics would allow easier extruding. See Appeal Br. 5 (citing MPEP
5
Appeal 2017-000812
Application 13/315,274
Ans. 4. The Examiner also states that Allan further teaches that the
conditions are supercritical. See, e.g., Allan, | [0033]. The Examiner
explains that supercritical conditions are known in the art to be conditions at
which a substance is above its critical point in terms of temperature
and pressure and turned into a supercritical fluid. Ans. 7. The Examiner
states that it follows that the motivation to melt the feed that would be
subjected to supercritical conditions, would include the ease of transporting
the feed to the reactor where the feed would be further heated
and pressurized into a supercritical fluid. Ans. 7.
Appellant next argues that Allan does not teach heating the molten
plastic to a vapor state because Allan teaches a plurality of reaction products
(liquid and gaseous). Appeal Br. 7.
We are in agreement with the Examiner’s stated reply made on pages
7—8 of the Answer. Therein, the Examiner explains that gaseous products
are vapors, and the present claims do not limit other products from being
formed.
Appellant also argues that Allan does not disclose “collecting the
plastic vapor and lowering the temperature of the plastic vapor to produce
liquid fuel” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7.
We agree with the Examiner’s response that this argument is
unpersuasive because Allan teaches (in the Abstract) that the plurality of
§ 2144.03). Rather, the Examiner is finding that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have understood that heating the waste plastics allows easier
extruding. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (a
person of ordinary skill is not automaton). On appeal, Appellant does not
direct us to any evidence to the contrary.
6
Appeal 2017-000812
Application 13/315,274
reaction products includes liquid transportation fuel known as “neodiesel”.
Ans. 8. The Examiner also states that Allan teaches an example in 148 of
rapid conversion of waste plastic materials into various aromatic compounds
that can be converted into liquid motor fuel. The Examiner explains that
therein, it is disclosed that after energizing, each vessel was rapidly cooled
by way of quenching to “completely liquefy” plastic samples into liquid
hydrocarbon mixtures that were found to be soluble in liquid gasoline and
diesel fuels. The Examiner explains that cooling a gas to collect it as liquid
is known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 8.
Appellant also argues that the proposed modification of Allan
according to Dressier would change the principle of operation of Allan
because Allan requires the reaction zone be sealed from the outside
environment. Appeal Br. 10.
We agree with the Examiner’s stated response made on page 9 of the
Answer. Therein, the Examiner states that this argument is not persuasive
because the “principle of operation” of Allan is in the depolymerization of
feed materials into liquid and gaseous products. The method to convey the
feed materials to the reactor would not change the “principle of operation”
of Allan. The Examiner states that changing the method for transporting the
feed materials through the supercritical fluid reaction zone of Allan to the
use of a plurality of trays on a conveyor belt is predictable to one of ordinary
skill in the art. Ans. 9. The Examiner states that the end result is that
the feed material is fed through the supercritical fluid reaction zone, and that
the use of a conveyor belt does not necessitate an open environment.
7
Appeal 2017-000812
Application 13/315,274
With regard to claim 2 (rejected in Rejection 2), Appellant also argues
that Dressier does not teach “placing the molten plastic in a plurality of
trays” or “traversing the trays over a plurality of induction coils” or use of “a
plurality of induction coils” as recited in claim 2. Appeal Br. 11—12.
We agree with the Examiner that this is not persuasive as Allan
teaches the plurality of induction coils. Ans. 9. The Examiner explains that
Dressier is relied on for the concept of using a conveyor belt with a plurality
of trays as a means of transport, and that it would be within the skill in the
art to design a tray to hold molten material. The Examiner further explains
that transporting the feed through the reaction zone (which has induction
coils) of Allan using a plurality of trays as the means of transport would
have been obvious in view of Allan’s Figure 6 showing that after the feed
passes through the “heat and pressure build-up” step, it is fed into the
supercritical fluid reaction zone wherein the supercritical fluid reaction zone
includes a plurality of induction coils. Allan, 128, Figure 4A, and Figure 6.
Ans. 9—10. We add that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according
to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007).
Appellant also argues that Dressier teaches linked trays with mesh and
that mesh would not be usable with molten plastic. Appeal Br. 12.
We agree with the Examiner’s stated response made on page 10 of the
Answer wherein the Examiner states that this argument is unpersuasive
because Dressier is relied on for the general concept of using a conveyor belt
with a plurality of trays to transport materials, the point being that, as stated,
8
Appeal 2017-000812
Application 13/315,274
supra, it would be within the skill in the art to design a tray to
accommodate molten material.
Appellant also argues that Dressier does not teach a plurality of rods,
as recited in claim 7, extending from the bottom of the tray. Appeal Br. 13.
We agree with the Examiner that this is not persuasive as Dressier
teaches, in lines 41—65 on page 2, that rollers (rods) may be of any usual or
suitable construction, and it would have been an obvious design expedient to
have modified the trays in order to accommodate the feed material of Allan.
Ans. 11. Also, we again refer to the Examiner’s statement made on pages 4—
5 of the Answer that obviousness is further supported by the fact that the
record does not show that the claimed method of transporting the molten
plastic through the electromagnetic induction stage is for any particular
purpose or solves any specific problem. Ans. 4—5.
In view of the above, we affirm the rejections.
DECISION
Each rejection is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
9